Impunity generates permissiveness.
This phrase in recent times applicable to the financial market of Ukraine, which is happening more and more absurd cases.
Previously, the media widely discussed the situation around the Deposit of MTS in “Platinum Bank”. The company supposedly can not repay 250 million UAH from the Bank and fighting for it in courts.
Deposit with another company in an already “fallen” Delta-Bank was also a very strange event.
MTS there was a Deposit in the amount of about UAH 1.5 bn. As a result of his assignment and questionable judicial decisions one of the major debtors of the Bank has been able to achieve the right to repay your loan.
The loan was pledged for refinancing from the NBU. If the court’s decision not to cancel the Delta-Bank may suffer losses in the amount of about 450 million UAH. And this is a risk that he do not settle with the NBU refinancing.
Episode 1. Platinum
MTS Ukraine in October-December 2014 posted in “Platinum Bank” three deposits — 100 million UAH, UAH 70 million and 80 million UAH. Upon expiration, return them failed and the depositor sued the Bank to court.
24 December 2015-the economic Court of Kiev took the side of the operator. The proceedings in the appellate court February 16, 2016, was terminated by the Bank.
A little later, “Platinum” asked to defer payments until the end of October. But the court reduced it by half and set a new deadline: money operator “Platinum Bank” was supposed to return until July 14. The Bank has again decided to challenge the decision of the first instance. He managed to renew the terms of appeal. At the moment the case is in court.
EP interlocutors in the banking market, hinting that the courts between MTS and “Platinum Bank” can be a kind of theatrical performance. Like, no Bank has no deposits of the company.
According to bankers, the management of the Bank could settle with the company in another jurisdiction, pre-moving “real” money from the Bank accounts.
Overall, MTS is the only mobile operator in the Ukrainian market as significant losses in troubled banks. Given the scale of the company, the financiers it is difficult to imagine how the company could take such frivolous decisions. It often happens that the security services of such companies have all the information about the banking market.
Whether the company has any official proceeding on this topic, the company has not responded.
“When such cases arise systematically, the question arises not only about the effectiveness of internal decision-making systems and the adequacy of the corporate governance system, but also on a minimum acceptable control of the risk management hierarchy of decision-making, limits of liability,” says financial analyst Ivan Uglyanitsa.
According to him, even assuming that error was committed by the management of the company deliberately, size, public status, presence of external controls (shareholders, Directors, external investors, interest groups within the company) must provide at least a minimum of control, which would greatly complicate such a multiple repetition of one and the “error”.
Alarming is not only the selection of banks for deposits, but what then happens to the deposits of the mobile operator.
Episode 2. Delta
After Delta Bank were selected license, his creditors, among whom were MTS, started filing requirements for the Bank to appear in the list of accepted creditors ‘ claims.
MTS this list is not stated. Based on the release of the Deposit guarantee Fund, instead of her stated financial company “accord”, which supposedly mobile operator has assigned the right to claim the debt.
Delta Bank reported that this assignment of rights requirements, but the MTS still did not show up as a creditor and lost the right to claim from the Bank his Deposit.
“Neither the mobile operator nor financial company are not creditors of JSC “Delta Bank”, in accordance with the provisions of the law “About system of guaranteeing deposits of individuals” requirements not included in the register of accepted creditors ‘claims, satisfaction of the liquidation procedure shall be considered settled”, — said in a release PDGF.
Until recently, the firm “accord” was unremarkable. However, at the end of 2015 it was featured in the media as the company, which were withdrawn tens of millions UAH from the state enterprise “Ukrspirt”.
Under what circumstances was the assignment of a Deposit from MTS in favour of “Chord,” in MTS could not explain. FC chord, despite the absence in the list of accepted creditors ‘ claims has receded part of the requirements in favor of the group of debtors of the Bank: “Kavitsky” and several related individuals.
OOO “Kavitsky” is one of the largest in Ukraine of networks of boutiques, which is known as the “Helen Marlen group”. The company was leveraged in the Delta Bank.
“The total debt on their mortgage loans, providing which were highly liquid real estate objects, is about 450 million UAH” — said in a release PDGF.